2021 INSC 0324
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).    4457­4458     OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10675­10676 of 2020)
ARUNA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AND OTHERS      ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4459   OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 11416 of 2020)
ARUNA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AND OTHERS      ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The  appellant  assails  the  dismissal  of  her  writ  petition  and
the   review   petition   by   the  High   Court.     The  High   Court  declined
1

to   interfere   with   the   order   of   the   District   Caste   Verification
Committee   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Committee’)   dated
22.10.2018 .     The   Committee   declined   to   verify   the   caste
certificate   of   the   appellant   under   the   proviso   to   Rule   14   of   the
Maharashtra   Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes,   De­notified
Tribes   (Vimukta  Jatis ), Nomadic  Tribes,  Other  Backward  Classes
and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste   Certificate   Rules,   2012   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the
Rules’) .     The   appellant,   as   a   consequence,   stood   retrospectively
disqualified   to   hold   the   post   of   President   of   the   Municipal
Council,   Kundalwadi,   under   Section   9A   of   the   Maharashtra
Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships
Act,1965 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’).  
3. Shri   B.H.   Marlapalle,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the   appellant,   submitted   that   the   acceptance   of   her   nomination
by   the   Returning   Officer   for   the   post   of   President   was
unsuccessfully challenged by respondent No. 4 in Election Appeal
No.   02   of   2016   on   the   ground   that   her   caste   certificate   dated
2

22.11.2016   was   invalid.     The   appellant,   prior   to   filing   her
nomination   had   obtained   the   requisite   caste   certificate   in   Form
10   under  Rule   6(1)(a)   from   the   competent   authority   in   the   State
of   Maharashtra.   The   Appellate   Court   upheld   the   validity   of   her
caste   certificate,   and   left   the   verification   of   the   same   to   the
Committee,   where   it   was   pending.     The   Committee   upheld   the
validity   of   the   caste   certificate,   but   erred   in   holding   that   the
certificate having been issued to a migrant from another State it
could   not   verify   it   under   the   proviso   to   Rule14.     The   appellant
having   failed   to   submit   the   verification   of   the   caste   certificate
within   the   stipulated   time,   was   declared   disqualified
retrospectively under the Act.  
4.  Shri   Marlapalle   submits   that   the   Verification   Committee
erred in relying upon the proviso to Rule 14.  The caste certificate
of   the   appellant   had   not   been   issued   by   an   authority   from
another   State.       The   High   Court   failed   to   notice   the   certificate
issued to the appellant was under Rule 6 (1) (a) in Form 10, the
validity   of   which   had   been   upheld   both   by   the   Appellate   Court
3

and   the   Committee.     It   erroneously   opined   that   she   could   not
have   contested   the   elections   on   basis   of   a   certificate   issued   at
Hyderabad,   without   a   fresh   Caste   Certificate   from   the   State   of
Maharashtra   notwithstanding   that   “Munnur   Kapu”   had   been
declared   an   “Other   Backward   Caste”   in   Maharashtra   also   on
07.12.1994.
5. Shri   Rahul   Chitnis   and   Shri   T.R.B.   Sivakumar,   learned
counsel   for   the   State   and   Respondent   No.4,   submitted   that   the
Appellate Court had left the verification of her caste certificate to
the Committee.  The Committee did not verify the same as having
been   issued   by   the   authorities   at   Hyderabad.     The   appellant
ought to have applied for a fresh certificate under the Rules.  The
retrospective disqualification of the appellant therefore merits no
interference   as   she   failed   to   submit   her   verified   caste   certificate
within the stipulated time. 
6. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the
parties.   The   controversy   lies   in   a   narrow   compass.     Both,   the
4

Committee   and   the   High   Court   having   posed   unto   themselves   a
wrong   question,   arrived   at   an   erroneous   conclusion.   The   High
Court   completely   misdirected   itself   in   holding  that   the  appellant
had   been   issued   a   caste   certificate   under   Rule   6(1)(c)   and   was
therefore ineligible to contest in the State of Maharashtra as she
was a migrant after the deemed date. 
7. The   father   of   the   appellant   was   born   in   Nanded,
Maharashtra   but   migrated   to   Hyderabad   in   or   about   the   year
1960.  The appellant was born in Hyderabad and   pursuant to her
marriage  on  24.05.1987,  she  migrated  from  the  State  of  Andhra
Pradesh to Maharashtra.  She held a valid caste certificate issued
to   her   at   Hyderabad   as   belonging   to   the   Other   Backward   Caste
“Munnur Kapu”.  As on the date of her migration “Munnur Kapu”
was not recognised as an Other Backward Caste in Maharashtra,
till it was so recognized on 07.12.1994.  The appellant applied for
and   obtained   a   caste   certificate   in   Form   10,   under   Rule   6(1)(a)
from   the   Sub­Divisional   Officer,   Biloli,   Maharashtra,   as   she
5

desired to contest the election for the post of President Municipal
Council. Rule 6 in the relevant extract reads as follows :­
“6.   Issuance   of   Caste   Certificate   to   migrated
persons.   ­   (1)   in   case   of   persons   migrated   from
other   State   or   Union   Territories   to   Maharashtra
State,­
(a) The Competent Authority, if satisfied, may issue
Caste   Certificate   to   the   applicants   belonging   to,
Scheduled   Caste   in   FORM­6   and   in   case   of
Scheduled   Caste   converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­
notified   Tribes   (Vimukta   Jatis)   or   Nomadic   Tribes
or   Other   Backward   Classes   or   Special   Backward
Category   in   FORM­10,   to   an   applicant   who   has
migrated   to   Maharashtra   State   from   any   other
State   or   Union   Territory,   on   production   of   the
respective   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled   Caste
converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­notified   Tribes
(Vimukta   Jatis)   or   Nomadic   Tribes   or   Other
Backward   Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category
Certificate   issued   to   his   father   or   grand­father   or
relative   by   the   concerned   Competent   Authority   of
that State;
(b) If the Competent Authority is of the opinion that
before   issuing   such   Caste   Certificate   in   FORM­10
to   a   migrated   person,   a   detailed   inquiry   is
necessary,   then   he   may   do   so   through   the
applicant’s State of origin;
(c)   A   Caste   Certificate   holder   who   has   migrated   to
the   State   of   Maharashtra   from   the   State   of   his
origin   for   the   purpose   of   seeking   education,
employment, etc., may be deemed to be the person
belonging   to   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled   Caste
converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­notified   Tribe
(Vimukta   Jatis)   or   Nomadic   Tribe   or   Other
Backward   Class   or   Special   Backward   Category,   as
6

the case may be, of the State of his origin and may
be   entitled   to   derive   benefits   from   the   State   of   his
origin   and   Union   Government,   but   he   shall   not
derive any benefits from the State of Maharashtra.
Explanation.   —   For   the   purpose   of   sub­rule   (1),
“migrant from other State" means, ­
(i) a person who has migrated to Maharashtra State
from any other State or Union Territory on or after
the deemed date;”
  Rule   2   (e)   defines   deemed   date,   relevant   to   the   appellant,   as
13.10.1967.
8. The   validity   and   genuineness   of   the   appellant’s   caste
certificate dated 22.11.2016 under Rule 6(1)(a) was upheld by the
appellate authority and the Committee.   The Committee patently
erred   in   declining   to   verify   her   caste   certificate   on   22.10.2018,
based on a complete misconception of facts.  The caste certificate
of the appellant dated 22.11.2016 was issued under Rule 6(1)(a)
by  the  competent  authority  of  the  State  of Maharashtra  and  not
by   the   competent   authority   at   Hyderabad.     Rule   14   reads   as
follows:
“14.   Verification  of  Caste   Certificate ­Any   person
desirous of availing of the benefits and concessions
7

provided   to   the  Scheduled  Caste,   Scheduled   Caste
converts to Buddhism, De­notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special   Backward   Categories   for   any   of   the
purposes as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act shall
invariably submit an application in   FORM­16   with
an affidavit in  FORM­3  and  FORM­17  for students;
FORM­18   with   an   affidavit   in   FORM­20   with   an
affidavit   in   FORM­3   and   FORM­21   for   election
purpose; or   FORM­22   with an affidavit in   FORM­3
and   FORM­23   for   other   purpose,   as   per   his
requirement, to the concerned Scrutiny Committee
for verification of his caste claim and issue of Caste
Validity Certificate, well in time:
Provided   that,   the   Caste   Certificate   issued   to
migrant from other State and Caste or Community
Certificates   issued   by   Authorities   of   the   States
other   than   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   shall   not   be
verified by such Caste Scrutiny Committee.”
9.   To   our   mind,   the   conclusion   of   the   Committee   reflects   a
confusion   in   thinking   of   the   members   of   the   Committee.     The
Committee   could   not   verify   a   caste   certificate   issued   by   a
competent   authority   of   another   State   under   the   proviso   to   Rule
14.   But we fail to understand, how the Committee could decline
to   verify   a   certificate  issued  under   Rule  6(1)(a)   in  the   prescribed
Form 10, the validity or genuineness of which was not in issue at
all. 
8

10. The   appellant   having   been   elected   on   28.12.2016   was
required   to   submit   her   Caste   Certificate   after   verification   by   the
Verification Committee within one year under Section 9(A) of the
Act   as   amended   by   the   Maharashtra   Act   No.   LXV   of   2018   in
Section 5B with effect from 07.04.2015.   In absence of the same
she   stood   retrospectively   disqualified   to   her   elected   post   of
President.   Reference   may   appropriately   be   made   to   Benedict
Denis   Kinny   and   Ors   v.   Tulip   Brian   Miranda   and   Ors,   AIR
2020 SC 3050, for the mandatory nature of the disqualification in
such event.
11. The   High   Court   committed   serious   error   of   record   in
examining   the   claim   of   the   appellant   under   Rule   6(1)(c)   which
deals   with   migration   for   the   purpose   of   education,   employment
etc.   based   on   a   caste   certificate   from   the   State   of   origin,   being
ineligible   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra   if   the   migration   was   after
the   deemed   date.     The   High   Court   grossly   erred   in   failing   to
appreciate   that   the   appellant   held   a   valid   caste   certificate   from
9

the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule
6(1)(a)   in   Form   10   in   accordance   with   the   prescribed  procedure,
the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before
it.     Furthermore,   the   appellant   was   not   seeking   the   reserved
status   for   the   purpose   of   education   or   employment.   The   High
Court   arrived   at   a   completely   wrong   conclusion   by   reason   of   an
erroneous appreciation of the facts.   The order of the High Court
is therefore held to be unsustainable. 
12. That   brings   us   to   the   nature   of   relief   to   be   granted   to   the
appellant   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present   case.
The elected tenure of the appellant comes to an end in December,
2021.     In the meantime, respondent no.4 assumed the position
of   the   President   after   the   disqualification   of   the   appellant.     We
are,   therefore,   satisfied   that   present   is   not   a   fit   case   where   we
should   reinstate   the   appellant.   The   relief   therefore   has
necessarily   to   be   moulded   to   be   prospective   in   nature,   with
regard   to   her   caste   status   as   “Munnur   Kapu”   in   the   State   of
10

Maharashtra as from 22.11.2016. The order of the High Court is
set aside and the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated.
………………………..J.
   (Navin Sinha)  
………………………..J.
   (R. Subhash Reddy)  
New Delhi,
July 27, 2021
11